Assault-rifle owners statewide are organizing a mass boycott of Gov. Cuomo’s new law mandating they register their weapons, daring officials to “come and take it away,” The Post has learned.

Gun-range owners and gun-rights advocates are encouraging hundreds of thousands of owners to defy the law, saying it’d be the largest act of civil disobedience in state history.

“I’ve heard from hundreds of people that they’re prepared to defy the law, and that number will be magnified by the thousands, by the tens of thousands, when the registration deadline comes,’’ said Brian Olesen, president of the American Shooters Supply, one of the largest gun dealers in the state.

______________________________

There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”

If you enjoyed reading about "NY Gun Owners Threatening Non-Compliance With New Gun Control Laws" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!

TurtlePhish

January 21, 2013, 09:07 PM

That's awesome. If nobody obeys, the law is pretty much useless. Kinda like Prohibition. I feel like this is really what we need to end the idiocy.

While obviously the RKBA and prohibition have nothing to do with each other, just interesting to think that the American people have resisted laws on such a massive scale before.

Zardaia

January 21, 2013, 09:12 PM

Defiance by not turning them in is one thing. I doubt thered be much door to door confiscation. Problem is they become closely guarded secret safe queens. Take em too the range, somone calls the cops and you're nailed. Sure you may get away with keeping them, but how do you use em unless at LEAST local and county le is onboard with non-enforcement?

Trent

January 21, 2013, 09:14 PM

Hell yeah.

This is how it's done, folks. Pay attention, because this agenda will be coming soon to a State Near You.

freyasman

January 21, 2013, 09:15 PM

Yeah well... what was that old Chinese curse? "May you live in interesting times..." :uhoh:

mmitch

January 21, 2013, 09:16 PM

Zardaia,

You "get away with it" by open defiance.

We are going to have to nut-up or shut-up.

Mike

Manco

January 21, 2013, 09:26 PM

In a general sense, respect for the law is fundamental to liberty itself, but when a specific law or set of laws is clearly in conflict with our civil rights--when those who are in power and claim to represent the people defy both reason and an established right in order to promote their own agenda--then civil disobedience can also become fundamental to preserving liberty. Some laws just don't deserve any respect. Several state legislatures have been doing this preemptively with respect to potential new federal gun control laws, so nobody should be surprised if many thousands or even millions of law-abiding citizens take it upon themselves to act in accordance with their consciences and make a little exception.

O C

January 21, 2013, 09:32 PM

To control the population, make them criminals. You don't have to go out and arrest them right away, just nail them with the new charges whenever you come in contact with them. After all, "It's against the law". The key element is the people who do the enforcing. If, the local Sheriff, or Chief of Police refuse to enforce the law, it becomes a moot point. On the other hand, if "Barney" has the tacit approval of his superiors, they can make life very difficult. Beware the local Prosecutor, if he's an attention whore, or seeks higher office, he will be your worst enemy.

gbran

January 21, 2013, 09:33 PM

It will be interesting to see the state's response to mass non-compliance. Will they go to war with its citizens? What will their tactics be? How far will they go?

sidheshooter

January 21, 2013, 09:38 PM

The thing is, A) if everyone does this, and enforcement becomes unpopular (particularly upstate) then the law loses its teeth and B) someone, somewhere will get poached on the way out of the range, and then get a lot of help running their case up the flag pole on the way to (knock on wood and common usage) getting tossed. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want to be that guy, but I'd chip in a month's worth of overpriced lattes to the defense fund, and to say that I wouldn't be the only one is an understatement.

Iggy

January 21, 2013, 09:42 PM

The present leader's support organization may decide to use the same tactic they did against Sarah Palin.
They wanted their supporters to dig up dirt on Sarah and send it to them so they could smear her.

The dear leader is getting the same bunch fired up to pound on gun supporting Congress and Senate members.

Do think this same network would not be used to report gun owners?

chipcom

January 21, 2013, 09:46 PM

I am pleased to see that NYers have not all lost their huevos. When the deck is stacked in the favor of the oppressor, the rest of us have but three options...submit, flee or resist. Personally, I am too stubborn to submit and too old to run...

M2 Carbine

January 21, 2013, 09:46 PM

The way it works is the government will arrest several people and have a show trial. The victims will get max sentences.

Then the government will be so kind as to set a deadline for everyone else to turn in their guns.

Most protesters will fold, using the excuse, "I'm not going to put my family through this just so I can keep a AR".

And for the few that will put up some kind of resistance, hide their guns, etc, about half the US population (judging by the last election) are government/obama rats that will turn you in.

Welcome to the brave new world.

pistolero guy

January 21, 2013, 09:47 PM

We may be seeing the start of a nation wide rebellion if Obama does something similar

chipcom

January 21, 2013, 09:51 PM

The way it works is the government will arrest several people and have a show trial. The victims will get max sentences.

Then the government will be so kind as to set a deadline for everyone else to turn in their guns.

Most protesters will fold, using the excuse, "I'm not going to put my family through this just so I can keep a AR".

And for the few that will put up some kind of resistance, hide their guns, etc, about half the US population (judging by the last election) are government/obama rats that will turn you in.

Welcome to the brave new world.
But here's the thing...they've been making examples of criminals for centuries...has it stopped crime? ;)

You have a valid point...many will submit, many will flee, some will resist and be made examples of....which will not only cause more to submit and more to flee, but also cause more to resist.

Manco

January 21, 2013, 09:53 PM

It will be interesting to see the state's response to mass non-compliance. Will they go to war with its citizens? What will their tactics be? How far will they go?

A common tactic would be to very harshly and publicly make examples out of a few citizens, in order to scare the rest into compliance. It will go to court where it will be up to a jury to decide whether the person broke a worthy law. You read that right, I'm talking about jury nullification--if at least one person in each jury votes to acquit based on the contemptible nature of these laws and why they were passed, then these laws will lose their effect. What will actually happen is impossible to predict. All I can tell you is that it is possible for the people to destroy unjust laws IF they stand firm in sufficient numbers, and in that event no legislature or judge can stop them.

meanmrmustard

January 21, 2013, 09:54 PM

But here's the thing...they've been making examples of criminals for centuries...has it stopped crime? ;)

You have a valid point...many will submit, many will flee, some will resist and be made examples of....which will not only cause more to submit and more to flee, but also cause more to resist.
Whose got the guts to be a martyr?

I've got a family, but what kind of world will my kids grow up in without me?

What kind of world is it that they'll have when there are no rights, or a government that oppresses them, with their father with his tail tucked sadly between the proverbial legs?

I'll fight.

sota

January 21, 2013, 09:55 PM

I am pleased to see that NYers have not all lost their huevos. When the deck is stacked in the favor of the oppressor, the rest of us have but three options...submit, flee or resist. Personally, I am too stubborn to submit and too old to run...

I read that and at the end I swear I heard the sound of a shotgun being racked.

blkbrd666

January 21, 2013, 10:07 PM

The way it works is the government will arrest several people and have a show trial. The victims will get max sentences.

Or...the government will attempt to arrest several people for a show trial. S will HTF and...?

larryh1108

January 21, 2013, 10:11 PM

Take em too the range, somone calls the cops and you're nailed.

For discussion purposes, how would anyone know if your AR is registered? Will you get a big, red star to put on the stock? Do you also think that anyone at the range would rat you out? I'd guess now would be the time to not show off your collection to your new neighbors but I'm guessing not many here do anyways. So, how would one be turned in for having an unregistered gun?? If your nosy, anti-gun neighbor asks if you registered it you'd tell her "of course, did you register yours?". Will they require ranges to see proof of registration to shoot there? Any thoughts on proof of registration?

bushmaster1313

January 21, 2013, 10:15 PM

It is not so simple.
Don't obey the registration law and you are asking for a world of hurt.

1) You will never be able to own a legal AR-15 type weapon in New York

2) You will not be able to shoot it in New York.

3) If possession of an unregistered gun is a felony, you could lose your 2nd Amendment rights in the entire USA forever.

4) If someone has a beef with you and knows what you are hiding under your bed or in your safe, they can ruin your life by ratting you out to the authorities. Persons in the middle of a nasty divorce or ex-spouses can get real nasty. Just ask the NJ cop whose wife knew he had an illegal Marlin 60 Assault Weapon. Yes, a Marlin 60. Conviction upheld on appeal.

I would not throw away my life to flip the bird to a politician who could not care less.

"No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights — in particular Amendment II — has given them," it states.

Tim the student

January 21, 2013, 10:22 PM

That is - interesting.

Good for them.

SuperNaut

January 21, 2013, 10:22 PM

Wouldn't it be poetic if the most anti-gun state were the first state to rebel?

blkbrd666

January 21, 2013, 10:23 PM

For discussion purposes, how would anyone know if your AR is registered?

I wasn't aware they had an option to register an AR.

Old Fuff

January 21, 2013, 10:23 PM

I suspect the NRA and NYSRPA will go into a federal court and ask for an injunction preventing the law’s enforcement while the court reviews challenges to it. Give the absolutely stupid way it is written, they are likely to get it.

goldie

January 21, 2013, 10:26 PM

^ Like others said, a form is filled out & mailed or faxed in. how can they tell who registered & who didnt ? unless its entered in a computer, & your name is called in & they ask if the particular gun in question is under your name? For the most part, ranges are privately owned, & if county run, they arent going to make phone calls all day long every time someone comes in with an ar or ak,they are pro gun,too & sure wont enforce it.Maybe with all the outcry, the law will be crushed before next year....

blkbrd666

January 21, 2013, 10:27 PM

I suspect the NRA and NYSRPA will go into a federal court and ask for an injunction preventing the law’s enforcement while the court reviews challenges to it. Give the absolutely stupid way it is written, they are likely to get it.

Hopefully, they will try to get Governor Cuomo out of office as well.

chipcom

January 21, 2013, 10:30 PM

I wish them well, but it is not so simple.
Don't obey the registration law and you are asking for a world of hurt.

1) You will never be able to own a legal AR-15 type weapon in New York

2) You will not be able to shoot it in New York.

3) If possession of an unregistered gun is a felony, you could lose your 2nd Amendment rights in the entire USA forever.

4) If someone has a beef with you and knows what you are hiding under your bed or in your safe, they can ruin your life by ratting you out to the authorities. Persons in the middle of a nasty divorce or ex-spouses can get real nasty. Just ask the NJ cop whose wife knew he had an illegal Marlin 60 Assault Weapon. Yes, a Marlin 60. Conviction upheld on appeal.

It's all well and good to fight for freedom,
But sometimes it pays to pick your battles.
Obviously there is not a guide book that tells one which battles should be fought and which should be avoided - everyone makes their own choices. So let me ask you this...if this is not one of those worth fighting, what would be an example of one that is?

meanmrmustard

January 21, 2013, 10:30 PM

I wish them well, but it is not so simple.
Don't obey the registration law and you are asking for a world of hurt.

1) You will never be able to own a legal AR-15 type weapon in New York

2) You will not be able to shoot it in New York.

3) If possession of an unregistered gun is a felony, you could lose your 2nd Amendment rights in the entire USA forever.

4) If someone has a beef with you and knows what you are hiding under your bed or in your safe, they can ruin your life by ratting you out to the authorities. Persons in the middle of a nasty divorce or ex-spouses can get real nasty. Just ask the NJ cop whose wife knew he had an illegal Marlin 60 Assault Weapon. Yes, a Marlin 60. Conviction upheld on appeal.

It's all well and good to fight for freedom,
But sometimes it pays to pick your battles.
Guess we should've let George III oppress us?

Let Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Amin kill innocents?

What is a worthy battle? Taking up arms in defense of PETA and Starbucks?

Forget New York, I don't like smog. Keep Joisy too.
I'll take my chances in the Corn States, where folks is as ornery as I am, and just as apt to fight to keep their rights intact.

The East can duke it out as they see fit, or as you suggest, find decent sand in which to bury your head.

blkbrd666

January 21, 2013, 10:35 PM

What is a worthy battle? Taking up arms in defense of PETA and Starbucks?

Hey, that Starbucks iced green tea is some pretty good stuff. :)

meanmrmustard

January 21, 2013, 10:36 PM

Hey, that Starbucks iced green tea is some pretty good stuff. :)
Eww!

I am a fan of the Mocha Frappuchino.

Airbrush Artist

January 21, 2013, 10:39 PM

How far will they Go ..2 words "Vince Foster" and the others they have already Murdered..

larryh1108

January 21, 2013, 10:39 PM

:eek:

I am a fan of the Mocha Frappuchino.

Hey, that Starbucks iced green tea is some pretty good stuff

YIKES!

What board did I log on to by mistake???

meanmrmustard

January 21, 2013, 10:41 PM

:eek:

YIKES!

What board did I log on to by mistake???
Not a coffee fan? Then Starbucks is just for you! I don't think coffee is even on the menu!

BHP FAN

January 21, 2013, 10:45 PM

elections have consequences.

TwoEyedJack

January 21, 2013, 10:45 PM

When I got out of college in 1989, I made a conscious decision to live where I live. I could have made more $ in CA, NY, CT, or Il. I grew up in PA, and remember how pissed I was that I had to wait almost a week to take possession of a .22 LR revolver. I decided at that moment I would never be subject to that kind of BS again. If I lived in NY, I would consider that I was behind enemy lines in hostile territory, and would do whatever it took to leave. Nothing is as eloquent as voting with your feet. Let the looters and moochers drown in their own cesspool. As an added bonus, no matter where you go in the free states you will be able to keep a larger percentage of your paycheck.

goldie

January 21, 2013, 10:47 PM

Its like the boston tea party of 1773 all over again ! No taxation without representation !:neener:

bushmaster1313

January 21, 2013, 10:54 PM

So let me ask you this...if this is not one of those worth fighting, what would be an example of one that is?

IMHO, this is not one of the battles worth fighting.

We are not talking a slap on the wrist for misdemeanor civil disobedience.
The people promulgating these laws would think nothing of throwing you in prison for 5 years, branding you a felon (thereby extinguishing your RTKBA), keeping you from your kids, and blacklisting you from any profession that requires a clean record.

I know I am not answering your question about what is worth fighting for, but that is not what is on the table.

larryh1108

January 21, 2013, 10:57 PM

Not a coffee fan? Then Starbucks is just for you! I don't think coffee is even on the menu!

I'm a huge coffee fan, actually. However, what was mentioned isn't coffee. Starbuck's main coffee blend is (I believe) Pike's Peak. Decent enough. For Columbian I prefer Caribou's brand, which is the best IMO. Believe it or not, the McDonald's who serve Newmans's coffee serves a great product for $1 for any size. I also really like Dunkin Donut's coffee. Cumberland Farm's gas stations serve a good coffee as well and I like their Columbian brand also. As you can see, I don't call anything that ends in "chino" coffee even though it may contain 10% real coffee. I also don't see any coffee with a "chino" in it in the hands of any hard core gun person who posts on these boards. Of course, I have been proven wrong.

SuperNaut

January 21, 2013, 10:58 PM

IMHO, this is not one of the battles worth fighting.

We are not talking a slap on the wrist for misdemeanor civil disobedience.
The people promulgating these laws would think nothing of throwing you in prison for 5 years, branding you a felon (thereby extinguishing your RTKBA), keeping you from your kids, and blacklisting you from any profession that requires a clean record.

I know I am not answering your question about what is worth fighting for, but that is not what is on the table.
"The price is too high;" and that is the story of how your inherent rights are stolen away.

Jnitti1014

January 21, 2013, 10:58 PM

I think that everyone is going to get a registration card with the listed rifles on the card.

usmarine0352_2005

January 21, 2013, 11:01 PM

.

Awesome.

I'm a police officer and I don't think people should have to register their weapons or have limits on magazines or so called assault weapons.

All the cops I know say you wouldn't go door to door to confiscate weapons. Not only is illegal it would also be suicide.
.

parsimonious_instead

January 21, 2013, 11:02 PM

NY is an interesting case because it's one of the few states with handgun registration. Want to find the rifles? Grab the addresses from the permit database. I don't know any handgun shooters at my range that didn't start with longarms in some fashion or another.

Zombiphobia

January 21, 2013, 11:07 PM

This is great. I hope gun-owners the nation over follow.

I'm tired of seeing people following unjust laws and citing the repercussions of doing otherwise.
"Oh wah well if we don't do what they say they can hurt us"

Man up. Our forefathers were facing charges of treason and execution for what they did to get this country into existence.

Stop being cry-babies and doing what your told out of fear of not being to exercise your rights. That makes no sense whatsoever. If you keep following these types of laws, you won't be able to exercise your rights anyway, because you're letting them be taken away!

If someone tries to take your arms by force, use force to protect them. Don't be sheep.

bushmaster1313

January 21, 2013, 11:08 PM

"The price is too high;" and that is the story of how your inherent rights are stolen away.

You live in the free state of Utah as a matter of choice.

In general, people who live in New York also do so as a matter of choice.
One of the consequences of living in certain states is that the freedoms which others take for granted in states like Utah simply do not exist in states like New York and New Jersey.

If an assault weapons ban was clearly unconstitutional it would have been successfully challenged before the country turned to the left.

Washington is not going to send federal troops to New York to enforce the Second Amendment.

It stinks, but that's the way it is.

Cesiumsponge

January 21, 2013, 11:11 PM

We may be seeing the start of a nation wide rebellion if Obama does something similar

Just like we did to Clinton in 1994?

larryh1108

January 21, 2013, 11:11 PM

I know a lot of people in New York and most have long guns only due to the lengthy and expensive process of handgun registration. I would guess (key word) that there are 4 long gun owners for every handgun owner just from who I know. There are so many long guns that are not known about, I don't see how any "voluntary" registration will work. Do you really own an AR if no one knows you own it? I think this is the thrust of the people who are standing up and saying they won't comply. How many wives even know what an AR is? If you live close-to-the-vest, you may be well under the radar and I don't see how it can be effectively enforced unless you actually use one in a HD situation. At that point, if it saved your life it was worth it.

meanmrmustard

January 21, 2013, 11:11 PM

I'm a huge coffee fan, actually. However, what was mentioned isn't coffee. Starbuck's main coffee blend is (I believe) Pike's Peak. Decent enough. For Columbian I prefer Caribou's brand, which is the best IMO. Believe it or not, the McDonald's who serve Newmans's coffee serves a great product for $1 for any size. I also really like Dunkin Donut's coffee. Cumberland Farm's gas stations serve a good coffee as well and I like their Columbian brand also. As you can see, I don't call anything that ends in "chino" coffee even though it may contain 10% real coffee. I also don't see any coffee with a "chino" in it in the hands of any hard core gun person who posts on these boards. Of course, I have been proven wrong.
I like it cause its chocolatey and has whipped cream.

I'm a hard core gun person.

You've been proven wrong.

I'm impressed of your coffee knowledge, though. You and my mom would have common ground. Pun intended.

19-3Ben

January 21, 2013, 11:14 PM

First I've heard of this.

They are the "canary in the mine" but that is one brave canary!!!! Bravo!!! If they pass similar stupidity here in CT, I sincerely hope we have the stones to do this.

blkbrd666

January 21, 2013, 11:15 PM

IMHO, this is not one of the battles worth fighting.

Well, maybe the folks up north just talk big...maybe they're just kidding. I do know that the folks down here with "pry it from my cold dead fingers" bumper stickers on their trucks pretty much mean it, wives, kids, jobs or not. And it's not just guns, it's any right. Most just want to be left alone.

Yep, when he mentioned it I had to go make me a cup of hot chocolate. Now I'm on the second cup.

meanmrmustard

January 21, 2013, 11:33 PM

Yep, when he mentioned it I had to go make me a cup of hot chocolate. Now I'm on the second cup.
It's cold!!!

Who puts whipped cream on hot chocolate! Blasphemers!

It's nice to have choices. Coffee, non coffee, guns.

larryh1108

January 21, 2013, 11:43 PM

Who puts whipped cream on hot chocolate! Blasphemers!

http://search.comcast.net/?q=hotchocolate&cat=images

It seems like you're in the minority there.

meanmrmustard

January 21, 2013, 11:48 PM

http://search.comcast.net/?q=hot chocolate&cat=images

It seems like you're in the minority there.
I'm a marshmallow guy, a purist of hot chocolate.

This is getting deep.

General Geoff

January 21, 2013, 11:53 PM

Defiance by not turning them in is one thing. I doubt thered be much door to door confiscation. Problem is they become closely guarded secret safe queens. Take em too the range, somone calls the cops and you're nailed. Sure you may get away with keeping them, but how do you use em unless at LEAST local and county le is onboard with non-enforcement?
You make for a very large, tight-knit group of banned weapon owners, and only take them out to the range in concert. It's one thing for an officer to arrest one or two guys with rifles. It's entirely another when there's 20, 50, or a hundred of them. Nobody (law enforcement included) wants to be the guy who fires the first shot of a civil war.

gc70

January 21, 2013, 11:58 PM

IMHO, this is not one of the battles worth fighting.

According to the Small Arms Survey (http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/publications/by-type/yearbook/small-arms-survey-2007.html), tens of millions of people worldwide (http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/2007/en/Small-Arms-Survey-2007-Chapter-02-annexe-1-EN.pdf) have chosen to ignore registration laws, as apparently have quite a number in your home state of New Jersey (http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/22/gun-restrictions-have-always-bred-defian/4), as discussed below.

Likewise, in New Jersey, said The New York Times in 1991, after the legislature passed a law banning “assault weapons,” 947 people registered their rifles as sporting guns for target shooting, 888 rendered them inoperable, and four surrendered them to the police. That’s out of an estimated 100,000 to 300,000 firearms affected by the law. The Times concluded, a bit drily, “More than a year after New Jersey imposed the toughest assault-weapons law in the country, the law is proving difficult if not impossible to enforce.”

Zombiphobia

January 22, 2013, 12:03 AM

You live in the free state of Utah as a matter of choice.

In general, people who live in New York also do so as a matter of choice.
One of the consequences of living in certain states is that the freedoms which others take for granted in states like Utah simply do not exist in states like New York and New Jersey.
:scrutiny:
And you can choose to be a sheep and let your government take away your freedoms and liberties, or you can choose to resist and tell your government, "No, you work for ME, not the other way around."

I choose to resist.

One of the consequences of choosing to let your government rule you is that they will eventually take everything you have, piece by piece.

Why do you choose to be afraid of what your government will do to you for exercising your right to bear arms?

meanmrmustard

January 22, 2013, 12:13 AM

:scrutiny:
And you can choose to be a sheep and let your government take away your freedoms and liberties, or you can choose to resist and tell your government, "No, you work for ME, not the other way around."

I choose to resist.

One of the consequences of choosing to let your government rule you is that they will eventually take everything you have, piece by piece.

Why do you choose to be afraid of what your government will do to you for exercising your right to bear arms?
More succinctly, do you live on your knees as a coward?

Or die on your feet, like a free man.

Prophet

January 22, 2013, 12:14 AM

No matter the consequences, what they're doing is American. Our forefathers would be proud.

... and for the record. Mocha Iced Coffee. From Sheetz. We're all bitter from the cold winters here in PA (all of that white-knucked clinging to guns and religion doesn't help either I imagine). Makes us mean enough to drink our coffee frozen all but solid. Even when we do decide to drink it hot it ends up cold as it's poured from the thermos to the mug anyway. :D

Jaxondog

January 22, 2013, 12:16 AM

You live in the free state of Utah as a matter of choice.

In general, people who live in New York also do so as a matter of choice.
One of the consequences of living in certain states is that the freedoms which others take for granted in states like Utah simply do not exist in states like New York and New Jersey.

If an assault weapons ban was clearly unconstitutional it would have been successfully challenged before the country turned to the left.

Washington is not going to send federal troops to New York to enforce the Second Amendment.

It stinks, but that's the way it is.
That's what they are counting on is for us to bow down and roll over like you. I hope the rest of the "People's Republic of New Jersey" has some larger acorn's than your's. I'm sure the brave men of the Boston Tea Party had wive's and children to think about as they stood up and fought for what they thought was right. Just think where we would be if they had'nt. If we don't stand up and fight back, we are coward's. I'm not one.

meanmrmustard

January 22, 2013, 12:18 AM

Your angry ex-wife fighting for custody knows you own it.
Prove it.

Unless she has proof that I own it, which my ex does not, her word doesn't mean jack.

Search, little minions, search until you are blue in the face with wariness.

You'll never catch me.

Edit to add: You tout yourself as from the "People's Republic of New Jersey" as if in disdain for the state itself or maybe just partially unsettled by its "blueness". However, you seem to embrace the backwards mentality that makes that very state a "RepubliK". I'm nary confused, but now I admit I am.

trickyasafox

January 22, 2013, 12:21 AM

I am sad to see so much talk on all gun boards to the effect of "well thats NY's problem, they voted them in, they can deal with it". I assure you, any state in the Union with a large city or a growing city population can and will have the same problems we are having here. 80+ percent of the State's geographic land mass is dominated by ONE CITY. Our politicians pander to them because THAT is where they fund raise. Upstate is outnumbered more than 2 to 1 at the polls. WE are not represented by people whom we vote for at high offices.

Ben Franklin said it best-

we must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.

NY will NOT be an isolated event. We will be the proving grounds on the viability of this legislation. I don't care what you think of your state's population and voting habits now- This will come to you in your time or in the time of your children.

We all need to ditch the lone-wolf mentality and get on the same page here.

I personally think this article hurts us. It is an attempt at discrediting the gun lobby as would-be criminals, people on the fringe who disobey laws. This battle will be fought in the courts, and we will do our best to keep trying to elect good officials that will represent us, but this had bi-partisan support- some of which had A ratings from the NRA (skelos was an A in 2010).

I am an Upstater- born and raised. I was raised in CNY, and educated in NYC and now live in WNY. I have seen much of the political climate of NYS and had a better opportunity than most to participate to the best of my ability in trying to support a government that I believe represents me. Please- do not give up on NYS, and do not write us off. I'm not asking you to give your money to our legal funds (though you can if you want) nor am I asking you to move here and help us win the polls with sheer numbers. I am asking you for your verbal, outward support.

We in NYS will fight as hard as we can to beat this legislation- but please don't leave us out in the cold. I don't think we could do anything worse than infighting on the eve of federal legislation, that I would bet is closely watching how things shake out in New York.

xxjumbojimboxx

January 22, 2013, 12:27 AM

Congratulations New York, for having some stones...
Unfortunatly for you the yankee's still suck. (please dont relaliate with anything pertaining to our last season. we know..)

Sincerly,
Red Sox fan who grew up in BOSTON

blkbrd666

January 22, 2013, 12:27 AM

I don't think anyone is leaving anyone out in the cold. I think the general consensus from most states is "stand up for your rights". NY is the proving ground, I just hope the gun owners don't back down.

trickyasafox

January 22, 2013, 12:31 AM

I will say this- it was freezing at the Buffalo rally last week- but we were there in force. Here's hoping we can beat this.

General Geoff

January 22, 2013, 12:31 AM

I personally think this article hurts us. It is an attempt at discrediting the gun lobby as would-be criminals, people on the fringe who disobey laws.
Disobedience is what this nation was founded on. I can't think of anything more American.

SouthernYankee

January 22, 2013, 12:37 AM

First, let me makes this clear, Tea, cream no sugar. With that out of the way, I have saved my FID card from the Peoples Republic of MA. that I had to get when I was in High School in the 70's or get a year in jail for possession of even a BB gun. Prior to that when I got my first .22 in grade school we would open carry on our way, multiple .22's, to the dump to shoot rats. Or, even leave them on the front yard while we squeezed in a quick Street Hockey game. No one ever hurt, bullets kept in our pockets while we lived like American Boy's. In forty years I have seen incredible gov't creep. Don't ever believe "This will be enough...", right! "We'll keep you safe.", right! Look at all the gov't lies from accounting games to outright failed programs we can see but they say we just don't really understand, right! The gov't wants to grow, to do that it needs power, to do that it needs your rights. Our Founders were keenly aware of what concentrated power lead to and knew the only remedy for free people to resist such tyranny was to give the governing forces pause by facing an armed citizenry. Simple principle with very simple results. Worked well for the first 200+ yrs. and I don't see a compelling argument for switching horses now.

gc70

January 22, 2013, 12:43 AM

I personally think this article hurts us. It is an attempt at discrediting the gun lobby as would-be criminals, people on the fringe who disobey laws.

Martin Luther King Jr. Day seems an appropriate time to extol the virtues of civil disobedience.

1911 guy

January 22, 2013, 12:48 AM

While this NY ban doesn't effect me (yet), I do hope the best for them. The best outcome would be such massive non-compliance would result in the folks in charge seeing they have legislated against the will of the people and changing course.

jamesbeat

January 22, 2013, 12:51 AM

This is bizarre.

A discussion about the real possibility of mass civil disobedience, possibly a monumental and historic occasion, interspersed with a frivolous discussion about coffee?

BHP FAN

January 22, 2013, 12:54 AM

I too live ''upstate'', I feel your pain. I live in a little red corner of upper California, almost to Oregon, and my vote does not count for jack. I STILL stubbornly vote every time, but it doesn't mean much to anyone but me.

trickyasafox

January 22, 2013, 01:10 AM

I agree civil disobedience is crucial but I am trying to consider all ways information will be leveraged against us

Texshooter

January 22, 2013, 01:22 AM

Resist now!

Thank God, Martin Luther King stood up against unjust "laws."

To defy the law in a civil way will win this fight.

sfed

January 22, 2013, 03:00 AM

What part of "not be infringed upon" do they not understand?? Limiting New York Residents to 7 rounds IS infringing on their 2nd amendment rights!!!!

joeschmoe

January 22, 2013, 04:10 AM

Are they threatening to vote the bastards out yet?

r1derbike

January 22, 2013, 04:21 AM

Mucho cajones, NY! Good on ya'!

I'm up for some civil disobedience if it comes to AR! I'm old, kids grown, my job was eliminated, and I'm rife with government disgust over nearly everything it stands for, and spends our tax dollars on.

I'm an old curmudgeon financially strapped, can't get hired, skip meals, love my wife, so when do I get started? I can still throw rocks 10 feet or so, but can't see my target. I talk to squirrels outside, and my wife assures me there aren't any in the audience. ;-]

I know my marshmallow blow-gun still works, as I chase my wife around the house occasionally. I forgot where I put the Viagra, so that's about as much fun as I get around here.

I'd make a perfect civil disobedience lackey. Oh, I forgot to mention, I'm ill, so I have really nothing to lose. At least 3 squares a day and clothes that don't have holes in them, a TV that actually works, and lots of friends.

Seriously, though. I'd wait for someone to knock at the door to confiscate, then do my civil duty to obey the Constitution. I pray it doesn't come to that, pitting brother against brother. I'll probably be dead before something like that happens, if ever, but I may be sure I will be dead if it does. I often wear my NY T-shirt, because it's cool, and fits perfectly.

HorseSoldier

January 22, 2013, 04:39 AM

What part of "not be infringed upon" do they not understand?? Limiting New York Residents to 7 rounds IS infringing on their 2nd amendment rights!!!!

This is exactly how this issues needs to be approached.

We should not be on the defensive about NY being a spreading disease, we need to be on the offensive hammering away at the point that this new legislation that Cumuo rammed through the legislature has placed New York in a state of insurrection against the US Constitution.

It was done recklessly, in the dead of night, and without regard for the state's own due process for legislation -- the New York SAFE Act was, for our purposes, opening fire on Ft Sumter.

The only thing that may be hard for some gun owners to wrap their head around is we're the Union, they're the rebels.

Gun owners in New York need to not just engage in civil disobedience, they need to get law suits raining into the court systems like JDAMs in Tora Bora. The fight is definitely on, and things are definitely precarious, but there's potential here for the pro-2A side to maul the anti-gun side horrifically thanks to the bumbling by Cuomo in his rush to open fire on the Constitution.

sonick808

January 22, 2013, 04:43 AM

Looks like New York is going to show everyone how it's done. Bravo!!

freyasman

January 22, 2013, 10:01 AM

"The first guy through the wall always gets bloodied..." Its up to us to not forget that guy, and to support him, (or them), to the best of our ability.

ltcboy

January 22, 2013, 10:04 AM

I am sad to see so much talk on all gun boards to the effect of "well thats NY's problem, they voted them in, they can deal with it". I assure you, any state in the Union with a large city or a growing city population can and will have the same problems we are having here. 80+ percent of the State's geographic land mass is dominated by ONE CITY. Our politicians pander to them because THAT is where they fund raise. Upstate is outnumbered more than 2 to 1 at the polls. WE are not represented by people whom we vote for at high offices.

Ben Franklin said it best-

we must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.

NY will NOT be an isolated event. We will be the proving grounds on the viability of this legislation. I don't care what you think of your state's population and voting habits now- This will come to you in your time or in the time of your children.

We all need to ditch the lone-wolf mentality and get on the same page here.

I personally think this article hurts us. It is an attempt at discrediting the gun lobby as would-be criminals, people on the fringe who disobey laws. This battle will be fought in the courts, and we will do our best to keep trying to elect good officials that will represent us, but this had bi-partisan support- some of which had A ratings from the NRA (skelos was an A in 2010).

I am an Upstater- born and raised. I was raised in CNY, and educated in NYC and now live in WNY. I have seen much of the political climate of NYS and had a better opportunity than most to participate to the best of my ability in trying to support a government that I believe represents me. Please- do not give up on NYS, and do not write us off. I'm not asking you to give your money to our legal funds (though you can if you want) nor am I asking you to move here and help us win the polls with sheer numbers. I am asking you for your verbal, outward support.

We in NYS will fight as hard as we can to beat this legislation- but please don't leave us out in the cold. I don't think we could do anything worse than infighting on the eve of federal legislation, that I would bet is closely watching how things shake out in New York.

You need more people to register to vote and hand your Governor his walking papers. It will be tough because NYC is the controlling factor, very similar to Chicago and Illinois.

Mike
__________________

HOOfan_1

January 22, 2013, 10:13 AM

I would not throw away my life to flip the bird to a politician who could not care less.

Guess we should all be glad Jefferson, Patrick Henry, John Adams, George Washington, Nathaniel Greene, Daniel Morgan et. al didn't feel the same way...

Browning

January 22, 2013, 10:14 AM

Finally, some NY'ers with some guts.

Was kinda wondering with all the ads of mags for sale from guys from NY going up on gun boards.

LemmyCaution

January 22, 2013, 10:23 AM

If the anecdotal evidence I've been given is correct, the current NYS AWB is lacking in both compliance and enforcement, at least in the rural, upstate areas. I don't see that changing much.

HOOfan_1

January 22, 2013, 10:26 AM

Are they threatening to vote the bastards out yet?

I don't understand all of this...they voted for them nonsense.

Do we have any proof that the people who dislike gun control voted for these politicials?

At least half of New York State's legislature consists of reps from New York City. How is that representative of the state as a whole?

Gregaw

January 22, 2013, 10:37 AM

IMHO, this is not one of the battles worth fighting.

If you give up the means to fight, your resistance will be futile when a fight "worth" having finally comes.

Jaxondog

January 22, 2013, 10:50 AM

This is exactly how this issues needs to be approached.

We should not be on the defensive about NY being a spreading disease, we need to be on the offensive hammering away at the point that this new legislation that Cumuo rammed through the legislature has placed New York in a state of insurrection against the US Constitution.

It was done recklessly, in the dead of night, and without regard for the state's own due process for legislation -- the New York SAFE Act was, for our purposes, opening fire on Ft Sumter.

The only thing that may be hard for some gun owners to wrap their head around is we're the Union, they're the rebels.

Gun owners in New York need to not just engage in civil disobedience, they need to get law suits raining into the court systems like JDAMs in Tora Bora. The fight is definitely on, and things are definitely precarious, but there's potential here for the pro-2A side to maul the anti-gun side horrifically thanks to the bumbling by Cuomo in his rush to open fire on the Constitution.
you are correct and I'm just wondering why the law suit's have not started yet. This is exactly what we need.

Tirod

January 22, 2013, 11:31 AM

Lawsuits take research, which requires labor, which requires payroll. Who's footing the bill? Nobody has yet spoke up they have been injured. That doesn't mean the NRA isn't doing that research as we speak. And once it's done, they can and will show up knowing the answers to the question before they ask - it's what lawyers do best.

I would not throw away my life to flip the bird to a politician who could not care less.

It's a choice up to the individual - not many would stand up to King George, and some even helped, unwittingly or not. But when Boston was disarmed and taken over by His Majesty's armed forces, and the troops literally lived in your home, attitudes changed.

When CA passed their first AWB, there was a deadline, and a lot of folks ignored it, too. Those guns are still in the state, and they haven't gone away. Plenty of folks in the south just drive out in the desert and use a hidden arroyo to practice, just as we do in various mined areas or on farms here. Simple discretion keeps things under wraps.

If you are worried about your neighbors ratting you out, that is an indicator you are already having your rights dictated by others. If you're comfortable about that, how about we address the problem of alcohol, and apply the same prohibitions? After all, tens of thousands are killed drunk driving, three thousand teens every year.

If they can impede your rights concerning firearms, how much more alcohol? We've already had Prohibition once, so why not a three day waiting period, a three beer limit, registering your purchase on a real time database? Will you like getting pulled over on the way back from the bar or liquor store because they are looking for you?

Next up, you can't have more children than they say. You can't own a house with more square feet than you need. You can't drive a car with more cylinders than the number of seats in it. And if you are a registered alcohol drinker, you can't start it without using the mandatory breathalyzer, every time.

People say they can pick and choose their fight, but in the long run, when the bully on the block gets tired of beating down his selected targets one at a time, he WILL come for you. It's what he does. You either bend your knee or it gets broken.

Better to fix it early, with help, before a lot of innocent people get hurt. Some run away from the sounds of gunfire, some run toward it. If you can't help, then get out of the way. Don't be part of the problem if being part of the solution is distasteful.

While there are some fanciful writeups of the hardships the signers of the Declaration of Independence suffered, what is real and factual is that they did suffer a great deal simply due to the fortunes of war, even if they weren't a target of deliberate actions. Some did die, some did have their properties ransacked, some did suffer financial loss, some did lose their sons - simply because they had the ravages of war inflicted on them, too. They weren't ignorant of the costs when they signed - the history of warfare was well studied among this literate group. Nonetheless, they did so.

They didn't throw away their life wastefully to insult a politician who didn't care. They beat him on the field of battle, and WE enjoy the fruits of their sacrifices. It's something men of character do when circumstances require selfless action.

Ask any one who volunteers to serve in the Armed Forces, police, fire, or emergency services. They understand.

jem375

January 22, 2013, 12:06 PM

prisons are already over crowded, if they stick together that new law will be gone in a hurry..

Old Fuff

January 22, 2013, 12:19 PM

The problem is that they know this. So rather then send you "up the river" they would settle for a fine - and a felony conviction that would mean you could never, ever legally possess a firearm or ammunition for the rest of your life.

jerkface11

January 22, 2013, 12:23 PM

Do we have any proof that the people who dislike gun control voted for these politicials?

Look at the people on this website alone who justify voting for anti gun politicians because "they were the lesser of two evils" or because "he's really good on the other issues" or my favorite "other than that he's a conservative".

MachIVshooter

January 22, 2013, 12:39 PM

This is a good sign.

NY is a test bed for harsh gun laws; They know if they can't make it work there, then there's no way they can do it in red state "fly over" country.

New Yorkers have my support. I'll happily contribute to any defense fund of a brave individual they try to make an example of.

Skribs

January 22, 2013, 12:40 PM

There was also the possibility that they voted for them before gun control came into the spotlight. It's always there in the media, but there hasn't been a frenzy for bans in a while.

Cosmoline

January 22, 2013, 01:23 PM

IMHO it's a far better tactic to take your tax dollars out of NY entirely and leave your house to the crackheads. Scorched earth. The gov is a gibbering mobster. He doesn't care about civil disobedience. In fact it gives him an opportunity to "get tough" on guns. But the state is struggling for money and has been losing tax payers for decades--replacing them with new immigrants. Remove even a few tens of thousands of gun owners along with Remington and Albany will start feeling the hurt right away. NY relies on the declining middle class to prop up its welfare state and keep the billionaires happy. Remove them and it starts to look more and more like Detroit.

22-rimfire

January 22, 2013, 01:38 PM

Mass civil disobedience is the answer. I sincerely hope that gun owners ignore the law and tell the their draconian govenor to hit the road. Same goes for every politician that voted for it. The whole deal was done in the dark of night without time for any kind of citizen response.

If I lived there and had the means, I'd leave the state.

AlexanderA

January 22, 2013, 01:51 PM

There are two routes to noncompliance: "silent" noncompliance, in which the person simply refuses to register the item and hides it, and civil disobedience, in which the person loudly declares his refusal and invites the authorities to prosecute. Civil disobedience works if there's an undercurrent of popular support for the protester's position, and the act of disobedience sparks wider protests and political action. This is what we saw in the cases of Gandhi and Rosa Parks, for example. On the other hand, "silent" noncompliance, which we see as a reaction to the strict gun laws in Europe, for example, is much more of a realistic problem for the authorites. "Silent" noncompliance, not civil disobedience, is what caused the undoing of Prohibition. But before Prohibition was officially repealed, the country had to endure all sorts of adverse social consequences. We can draw our lessons from these historical precedents.

gym

January 22, 2013, 02:23 PM

Clinton said yesterday or the day before, if you mess with gun owners rights, you will lose your job. That's from a guy from Arkansaw, he may not agree, but he realizes the consequenses.
If a tree falls in the fores, applies here. You should tell anyone who you think would "rat you out", that you sold your gun, if you intend on keeping it.
With no proof to the contrary it would be very hard to get a search warrant. The judge would have to ask the person, if he saw the gun after the ban. Forget about before, and he would need coraberating whitnesses, it's not a 3d world country yet.

anchorman

January 22, 2013, 02:45 PM

prisons are already over crowded, if they stick together that new law will be gone in a hurry..

that's o.k. the private prison industry will build more. they make good money off of keeping people locked up.

razorback2003

January 22, 2013, 02:59 PM

If you can move, I would move. Any state that has tons of gun control regulates other things to death and taxes heavily.

Give it some time, and I predict New York, California, and Illinois to file for bankruptcy protection. The fed govt can't file for bankruptcy but states and local govts can. That is when things will get very interesting.

Starve the NY govt by moving and not giving them your tax money.

45_auto

January 22, 2013, 03:27 PM

Reality Check #1. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.

All of your non-registration protests will have exactly the same effect in New York as they did in Connecticut 20 years ago. New York City (controls the state) won't even know they're happening. Connecticut Assault Weapon Registration:

No person shall possess any "assault weapon" unless that person possessed that firearm before October 1, 1993 and received a certificate of possession from the Connecticut State Police prior to July 1994. The commissioner of public safety shall maintain a file of all certificates of transfer at the central office.

No assault weapon may be sold or transferred to any person other than to a licensed gun dealer, or any individual who arranged in advance to relinquish it to a police department or the department of public safety, or by bequest or intestate succession. Any person who obtains title to an assault weapon for which a certificate of possession has been issued by bequest or intestate succession shall, within 90 days of obtaining title, apply to the department of public safety for a certificate of possession, render the weapon inoperable, sell the weapon to a licensed gun dealer, or remove the weapon from the state. Any person who moves into the state in lawful possession of an assault weapon shall, within 90 days, either render it permanently inoperable, sell it to a licensed gun dealer, or remove it from the state.

Just like in Connecticut, no one will come looking for your guns, and the laws will have no effect on crime. But the laws will stay on the books and will be available as additional charges to any law enforcement officer who stops you for speeding on the way to the range with your unregistered gun, high cap mag, etc. It's just another small nail in the coffin. I don't see New York outside of the city having the political power to do anything about it.

joeschmoe

January 22, 2013, 03:59 PM

I don't understand all of this...they voted for them nonsense.

Do we have any proof that the people who dislike gun control voted for these politicials?

At least half of New York State's legislature consists of reps from New York City. How is that representative of the state as a whole?
False. I keep hearing this excuse from NY'ers who obviously don't understand how their government works. This must be a talking point on some radio show or something.
Just like the federal government the NY legislature is made of two houses. One is based on districts, the other based on population. The Senate house is controlled by republicans and not based on population. That means rural districts, with millions of gun owners voted for this law. Now they need to vote for new representitives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Legislature

Of course they need to vote the bastards out. How else are they going to change it?

HOOfan_1

January 22, 2013, 05:29 PM

False. I keep hearing this excuse from NY'ers who obviously don't understand how their government works. This must be a talking point on some radio show or something.
Just like the federal government the NY legislature is made of two houses. One is based on districts, the other based on population. The Senate house is controlled by republicans and not based on population. That means rural districts, with millions of gun owners voted for this law. Now they need to vote for new representitives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Legislature

Of course they need to vote the bastards out. How else are they going to change it?

According to their website,

63 Senate districts..something like 26 are from New York City..then you have Long Island and the population centers around New York City, but not in it

http://www.latfor.state.ny.us/maps/?sec=2012s

Seems pretty skewed to me...

pseudonymity

January 22, 2013, 05:31 PM

False. I keep hearing this excuse from NY'ers who obviously don't understand how their government works. This must be a talking point on some radio show or something.
Just like the federal government the NY legislature is made of two houses. One is based on districts, the other based on population.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Legislature

Actually, I think we are quite educated on how our representatives are apportioned. From the state Constitution, Article III:

§2. The senate shall consist of fifty members, except as hereinafter provided. The senators elected in the year one thousand eight hundred and ninety-five shall hold their offices for three years, and their successors shall be chosen for two years. The assembly shall consist of one hundred and fifty members.

§4. Except as herein otherwise provided, the federal census taken in the year nineteen hundred thirty and each federal census taken decennially thereafter shall be controlling as to the number of inhabitants in the state or any part thereof for the purposes of the apportionment of members of assembly and readjustment or alteration of senate and assembly districts next occurring, in so far as such census and the tabulation thereof purport to give the information necessary therefor.

Maps of districts based on 2010 census data (http://www.latfor.state.ny.us/)

Just a quick glance at the district maps for the NY legislature will show you where NYC is located - the assembly map in PDF format is actually published as separate documents because the size of the lines depicting upstate districts are actually larger then entire NYC assembly districts.

It is definitely about population.

pseudonymity

January 22, 2013, 05:43 PM

The problem is that they know this. So rather then send you "up the river" they would settle for a fine - and a felony conviction that would mean you could never, ever legally possess a firearm or ammunition for the rest of your life.

Although that is a terrible prospect, that is not my worst concern. If you get on the state database of "assault weapon" holders, how do you think any deliberate LE contact with you is going to occur? When SWAT teams regularly do no-knock entries at 3am for minor drug offenses, what do you think they would do if they knew I had a half dozen "assault weapons" registered?

There will be blood of innocent victims flowing in the streets as a result of this law, but it will not be police or children in school - it will be the families of assault weapon owners that registered as the law requires.

joeschmoe

January 22, 2013, 05:50 PM

At least half of New York State's legislature consists of reps from New York City. How is that representative of the state as a whole

According to their website,

63 Senate districts..something like 26 are from New York City..then you have Long Island and the population centers around New York City, but not in it

http://www.latfor.state.ny.us/maps/?sec=2012s

Seems pretty skewed to me...
Do you see where you contradict yourself there?

The MAJORITY of the senate is NOT NYC, as you claim.

Skribs

January 22, 2013, 05:58 PM

Maybe not, but the map showing the majority of NY as red doesn't factor in how many tiny blue districts there are, and the fact that each district, no matter the physical size, gets the same amount of senators.

I'm glad I don't live in New York. The purpose of the senate (at least in the US) is to present a non-population-based government representation system. By making the senate based on population indirectly (by basing it on districts that are based on population) they essentially make it so both the house and senate are population-based. That gives extra power to the high population centers.

joeschmoe

January 22, 2013, 05:59 PM

Actually, I think we are quite educated on how our representatives are apportioned. From the state Constitution, Article III:
Hoofan is not
Just a quick glance at the district maps for the NY legislature will show you where NYC is located - the assembly map in PDF format is actually published as separate documents because the size of the lines depicting upstate districts are actually larger then entire NYC assembly districts.

It is definitely about population.

I explain this again for you. The SENATE, is not based on population, and is NOT controlled by NYC. That is the statement I was correcting. The myth that keeps being spread by talk radio is this is somehow all NYC's fault and the rest of the state has no power. False.
That is exactly why there are two houses, one by districts, one by population. The system works as it should.
The rural district senators could have easily defeated this bill, but they voted for it. Both houses slamed dunked this law. Don't blame NYC when the whole state did it. Bi-partisan too.
There are millions of gun owners in NY (including NYC).
If any NY gun owner votes any of these clowns back in, then they deserve the government they get.
Time for new politicians in NY.

Kynoch

January 22, 2013, 06:00 PM

For discussion purposes, how would anyone know if your AR is registered? Will you get a big, red star to put on the stock? Do you also think that anyone at the range would rat you out? I'd guess now would be the time to not show off your collection to your new neighbors but I'm guessing not many here do anyways. So, how would one be turned in for having an unregistered gun?? If your nosy, anti-gun neighbor asks if you registered it you'd tell her "of course, did you register yours?". Will they require ranges to see proof of registration to shoot there? Any thoughts on proof of registration?

Excellent point. My AR has been banned here since 1989. So have mags exceeding 10 rounds. I registered my AR so therefore I can "legally" own it.

Since 1989 I have taken it to several ranges with varying sized mags and I have never been questioned. They would have to read the roll-stamp on the receiver to even be aware that it is banned by model number.

Stevie-Ray

January 22, 2013, 06:15 PM

I am a fan of the Mocha Frappuchino. Now yer talkin, same here! For coffee, I'll just make my own, usually Tully's Italian Roast or GM Sumatran Reserve, but those Mocha Fraps are the cat's ass when I feel like Starbucks.

I seem to remember when California enacted their AWB, they had a certain amount of time to register them. At the due date, 20K of 300K had been registered. Near total non-compliance. I was very proud of Californians at the time. The result was on the order of "I think we need to revisit that law." Don't remember the eventual outcome, but since Cal is number one on Brady, we must've gave in. Haven't read all the replies, so if it was brought up before, sorry.

Skribs

January 22, 2013, 06:20 PM

I explain this again for you. The SENATE, is not based on population, and is NOT controlled by NYC. That is the statement I was correcting. The myth that keeps being spread by talk radio is this is somehow all NYC's fault and the rest of the state has no power. False.
That is exactly why there are two houses, one by districts, one by population. The system works as it should.

The senate is based on districts. The districts are based on population, with the smallest (read: most numerous) districts occuring near high population centers. Therefore, the senate is also based on population.

joeschmoe

January 22, 2013, 06:25 PM

Are they threatening to vote the bastards out yet?
So that's a "No"?

NY gun owners will keep voting for the same gun grabbers and then whine about bloomberg/NYC.
Somehow contacting these state reps and working to remove them is beyond possible, but civil disobence and even armed revolt are the first things to consider.

Any you expect positive results without changing politicians first?

joeschmoe

January 22, 2013, 06:42 PM

The senate is based on districts. The districts are based on population, with the smallest (read: most numerous) districts occuring near high population centers. Therefore, the senate is also based on population.
The state senate is NOT CONTROLLED BY NYC!!!

The rural, not nyc, senators alone could have killed this bill. They voted for it.

It's not just NYC or Dem's. This was state wide and bi partisan.

HOOfan_1

January 22, 2013, 07:00 PM

I didn't say majority, I said "at least half".

Actually, it was about 41%. But then you add long island and the NYC suburbs and you have over half.

If it has nothing to do with population, please explain why tiny little NYC has so many districts...face it , you are wrong

pseudonymity

January 22, 2013, 07:01 PM

Hoofan is not

I explain this again for you. The SENATE, is not based on population, and is NOT controlled by NYC. That is the statement I was correcting. The myth that keeps being spread by talk radio is this is somehow all NYC's fault and the rest of the state has no power. False.
That is exactly why there are two houses, one by districts, one by population. The system works as it should.
The rural district senators could have easily defeated this bill, but they voted for it. Both houses slamed dunked this law. Don't blame NYC when the whole state did it. Bi-partisan too.
There are millions of gun owners in NY (including NYC).
If any NY gun owner votes any of these clowns back in, then they deserve the government they get.
Time for new politicians in NY.

Where are you getting this information? Both the Senate and Assembly in NY are based on population - there is no Senate district that is based on a set geographic size.

Take a look at this map. (http://www.latfor.state.ny.us/maps/2012s/fs-NYS.pdf) What I would consider upstate is north of district 39 or so. There were some upstate districts that voted for the gun control legislation - 41 in Duchess county, 44/46 in the Albany capital area, 53 including Syracuse, and 60/63 in the Buffalo area. All the rest of that map voted against the new gun control laws. You want to look at districts 36 and 45 and tell me this is not about upstate/downstate and population?

HOOfan_1

January 22, 2013, 07:08 PM

Sure some non-NYC districts voted for it, but to say that without the huge number of NYC reps, that the bill was a slam dunk, is ludicrous. It isn't that hard to look at the maps and see NYC is a huge influence....

Yelovitz_503

January 22, 2013, 07:15 PM

Go figure, the American people aren't so asleep that they'll follow any unconstitutional law thrown in their faces. Good for them!

I can tell you with 100% certainty that I will be doing the same thing if/when this happens in Oregon. I'm glad that LEOs are seeing this for what it is and refusing to enforce it... although DHS is exactly the group with an abundance of funding and nothing better to do than come enforce something like this.

I really don't ever want to see the day when our military and LEOs are ordered to turn against the American people. It would be a BAD time for everybody.

I'm glad that people are still awake enough to recognize what's happening, the real question is do we have what it takes to do whatever is necessary to preserve this country we all love, but seem to have taken for granted? :uhoh:

joeschmoe

January 22, 2013, 07:18 PM

At least half of New York State's legislature consists of reps from New York City. How is that representative of the state as a whole?

:banghead::banghead::banghead:

False. No more moving goal posts or strawman arguments.

Skribs

January 22, 2013, 07:24 PM

What HOOfan said:

Actually, it was about 41%. But then you add long island and the NYC suburbs and you have over half.

If it has nothing to do with population, please explain why tiny little NYC has so many districts...face it , you are wrong

Joeshcmoe, you're focusing on that one claim of >50%, which is slightly high, and ignoring the bigger picture that it IS population based, and a significant amount of the districts cover a small sliver of the geographical area. The point is, even though the senate should represent a wide range of locations, the biggest concentration is near the cities.

gc70

January 22, 2013, 07:24 PM

Offer New York City statehood and free the rest of New York from the City's stranglehold.

HOOfan_1

January 22, 2013, 07:25 PM

I admitted I said at least half...and I admitted it was only 41%. But I also pointed out the suburbs. This is just getting ridiculous.

USSR

January 22, 2013, 07:26 PM

Seems pretty skewed to me...

It is, and us rural upstaters are skrewed.

Don

HOOfan_1

January 22, 2013, 07:39 PM

it is population based

Not to mention, it isn't as simple as just "vote 'em out"

Gun rights are not a voting issue for everyone.

I didn't vote for Obama, I didn't vote for Warner or Kaine, Virginia's Senators. How is it my fault if they push through gun legislation?

Blaming New York gun owners opposed to this law for voting in these legislators is akin to blaming political dissidents in North Korea for letting the Communist take over.

James Madison said the Constitution should protect or individual rights from factions...unfortunately, that hasn't worked over our entire history.

hogshead

January 22, 2013, 07:40 PM

Reminds me of a Hank Jr song. Just send me to hell or New York city it would be about the same to me.

browningguy

January 22, 2013, 08:07 PM

It won't happen. When NYC decided to tell people how big a coke they can buy, everyone just went and bought two.

SharpsDressedMan

January 22, 2013, 08:13 PM

Ooooo. This creates a moral dillema for THR moderators. THR traditionally does not allow postings that advocate breaking the law............:uhoh::confused::eek::rolleyes:

SharpsDressedMan

January 22, 2013, 08:14 PM

Well ,they could always tape two 7 rounders together.:D

Manco

January 22, 2013, 08:20 PM

Ooooo. This creates a moral dillema for THR moderators. THR traditionally does not allow postings that advocate breaking the law............:uhoh::confused::eek::rolleyes:

Well, that's what can happen when the law itself breaks the law.

SharpsDressedMan

January 22, 2013, 08:28 PM

Who gets to decide that one?

larryh1108

January 22, 2013, 08:37 PM

Well........ didn't a moderator start this thread??
hmmmmmm......

Manco

January 22, 2013, 08:45 PM

Who gets to decide that one?

In this forum, the moderators. Legally, the courts, up to and potentially including the Supreme Court. But look at how the latter is divided strictly along political lines these days, with some of the justices obviously trying to legislate from the bench despite what the Constitution says. The ultimate judge in a free country is always by definition the people, both through indirect means via elections and more direct means when necessary (e.g. jury nullification, civil disobedience, revolution). The deliberate breaking of unjust laws is hardly unprecedented, and I suspect that there is a reason this thread has remained open.

docsleepy

January 23, 2013, 12:55 AM

Brighter people than me will probably find the best answer. But the classic civil disobedience in the face of unjust laws is bubblegum on the sidewalks. Something bothersome to the tyrant, but where he can't really do anything about it. Eventually he tires out.

AR owners might be 1% of the population. Too few to make much difference by moving (to reduce tax base). A small enough population that it is easy to tyrannize them. Add in "hi-cap" pistol owners and you might have a tax issue, if say, they all decided to delay sending in their property tax by quite a while. Not long enough to risk a lien, but long enough to adversely impact the governmental finances. Or put bubblegum on the check.

Just thinking....

jmorris

January 23, 2013, 12:57 AM

prohibition is an interesting thing to bring up. Massive non enforcement, massive non-compliance depends on where you live. Many other threads on that subject.

hnk45acp

January 23, 2013, 01:07 PM

This is a prickly one. If you truly believe that the 2A is about defending against tyranny and that registration leads to confiscation I can't see how in good conscience you would register. Once the government has that info it's there forever. This may be the one step too far for many

Browning

January 23, 2013, 01:12 PM

Brighter people than me will probably find the best answer. But the classic civil disobedience in the face of unjust laws is bubblegum on the sidewalks. Something bothersome to the tyrant, but where he can't really do anything about it. Eventually he tires out.

AR owners might be 1% of the population. Too few to make much difference by moving (to reduce tax base). A small enough population that it is easy to tyrannize them. Add in "hi-cap" pistol owners and you might have a tax issue, if say, they all decided to delay sending in their property tax by quite a while. Not long enough to risk a lien, but long enough to adversely impact the governmental finances. Or put bubblegum on the check.

Just thinking....
I think it's more than 1%.

...then that means there are at least 2,446,294 AR-15 rifles currently available in the United States.

Good point but I myself have several. So fewer persons than firearms. The trick is to find something you can do that causes a problem when thousands copy, but looks silly to prosecute. Bubblegum on tax checks, glue inside the envelope, jam phone lines, delay payment , add sugar. Something.

ApacheCoTodd

January 23, 2013, 05:11 PM

Sure, ignore the law, get caught, get convicted (AND YOU WILL BE CONVICTED OR PLEA!) if caught and then be a felon for the rest of your life.

What's voting or owning other firearms (or the NY illegal firearms while living in another state) worth to you?

Stay, comply, vote and push for change or get out or, get the offending guns out as many Californian's did. But don't make a point that'll put you right into the group they want you in - a felon.

wacki

January 23, 2013, 06:47 PM

deleted

trickyasafox

January 23, 2013, 07:43 PM

we are trying to vote out our legislators who put this on us. We haven't even been successful in getting competent people on the ballot to run against them. Its not as simple as 'voting for the other guy/gal'. we are having to foster candidates from scratch. Don't forget we had a number of Repubs who supported this proudly.

ApacheCoTodd

January 23, 2013, 07:52 PM

we are trying to vote out our legislators who put this on us. We haven't even been successful in getting competent people on the ballot to run against them. Its not as simple as 'voting for the other guy/gal'. we are having to foster candidates from scratch. Don't forget we had a number of Repubs who supported this proudly.
Yup - been there, done that when I lived in California.
Sometimes your the salmon who make it to the spawning beds
Sometimes the bears get you
Sometimes you smash yourself against the rock in vain

or

Sometimes you're the salmon who says "ta hell with it" and just goes elsewhere...

JLeňdhas

January 23, 2013, 08:50 PM

Three cheers for them!

chipcom

January 23, 2013, 09:51 PM

IMHO, this is not one of the battles worth fighting.

We are not talking a slap on the wrist for misdemeanor civil disobedience.
The people promulgating these laws would think nothing of throwing you in prison for 5 years, branding you a felon (thereby extinguishing your RTKBA), keeping you from your kids, and blacklisting you from any profession that requires a clean record.

I know I am not answering your question about what is worth fighting for, but that is not what is on the table.
I think your outline of the potential consequences makes my point that this is indeed worth fighting for. A government that turns honest people into criminals overnight for no-good reason and then uses threat of ruin, violence and prison to impose their will is not the kind of government I want to bequeath to my kids and grand kids. I think this is worth taking a stand on...but as I said someplace else, everyone has their own idea of when to fight, run or hunker down...so I'm just expressing my opinion here, not trying to be an arrogant judge. ;)

chipcom

January 23, 2013, 10:00 PM

More succinctly, do you live on your knees as a coward?

Or die on your feet, like a free man.
"It's better to die upon your feet than to live upon your knees!"
-- Emiliano Zapata

joeschmoe

January 23, 2013, 10:27 PM

But the classic civil disobedience in the face of unjust laws is bubblegum on the sidewalks. Something bothersome to the tyrant, but where he can't really do anything about it. Eventually he tires out.
... Or put bubblegum on the check.

Chewing gum ban in Singapore

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewing_gum_ban_in_Singapore

Now people in singapore pee in elevators and bring bags of poop from home to smear in public places.

RustyHammer

January 23, 2013, 10:46 PM

... :(

HOOfan_1

January 24, 2013, 01:17 PM

Sure, ignore the law, get caught, get convicted (AND YOU WILL BE CONVICTED OR PLEA!) if caught and then be a felon for the rest of your life.

What's voting or owning other firearms (or the NY illegal firearms while living in another state) worth to you?

Stay, comply, vote and push for change or get out or, get the offending guns out as many Californian's did. But don't make a point that'll put you right into the group they want you in - a felon.

Staying and voting will do nothing in this case. Even if you can get the law repealed, you cannot unregister your gun.

There are plenty of heroes in our history who were branded felons by those in power at their time. They resisted unjust laws and now they are heroes because they changed the world for the rest of us.

Ryanxia

January 24, 2013, 01:22 PM

Zardaia,

You "get away with it" by open defiance.

We are going to have to nut-up or shut-up.

Mike

You said it.

The time is now. I believe Kennedy said something to the effect of those who will make peaceful resistance impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

ScrapMetalSlug

January 24, 2013, 11:32 PM

I see a lot of speculation and "what ifs" on this thread. Have there been any updates from anyone in the Empire State on organized protests or events? I am interested to follow this and would like to help if I can.

barnbwt

January 25, 2013, 12:56 AM

Indeed, Scrapmetal; Even as city-centric as the state is, I'd think enough denizens of the hinterlands could band together to rival a bus-line, at least. I've not heard of organized rallies, disruptive protests, marches, or even flash-mobs. If there have been, they've not done a good job getting publicized. Drudge would be anxious as hell to promote something like that, but I haven't seen anything there, even. A quick Google on "pro gun protest NYC" yields links describing nation-wide events in the capitols last weekend in support of NY, but nothing notable from NYC itself.

Are ya'll really serious 'bout getting serious? Or are you just complaining while looking for 7-round magazines?

TCB

InkEd

January 25, 2013, 01:00 AM

Defiance of unjust law is no more a criminal action than crime of passing the unjust law.

bushmaster1313

January 25, 2013, 01:17 AM

I think Starbucks at the store tastes burnt, but I like the Via instant.

If you enjoyed reading about "NY Gun Owners Threatening Non-Compliance With New Gun Control Laws" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!